You seem to have a fixation on proving someone wrong. Why? What does it matter if their beliefs are different from yours? I'm pretty comfortable with my beliefs, which I've described to some extent here, whether anyone else shares them or not. And, like I said, if you want to find out more about this God=Life hypothesis, check out Neale Donald Walsch. Why? Because it's pretty cool, that's why.

If what you want to do is ask questions you find interesting, eventually you will have to get used to the fact that the answer to some of those questions will be "No".

Maybe I'm just an asshole, but I was under the impression that the social contract regarding witnessing is the witnesser gets to propose whatever ideas they want - and everybody else gets to respond however they like, up to and including debating it, refuting it, and blowing giant holes in it with a double-barreled shotgun (bland acceptance of the witnesser's ideas is uncommon at best, in these parts). And because the witnesser basically asked for it, ripping into their ideas like this is somehow not threadshitting. The only thing that's actually disallowed is personal insults - and usually shredding the person's idea isn't considered a personal insult.

I'd say it's good clean fun for all, except that as often as not the witnessers themselves are unaware of how the game is played here and are surprised to find themselves getting ripped into.

For myself I'm entertained by strange ideas, as long as they're not boring - and to me this weird soul/god/telepathy business is not yet boring. I'll not be convinced, obviously, but I'm having fun drawing explanations of this odd concept of him and seeing how well his ideas adapt to having their logical flaws pointed out. I do hope he doesn't expect to convert me or anything (and I've tried to make it very clear nothing like that will happen), but as long as he's enjoying the discussion (which he seemingly is) I don't even feel like I'm tweaking the guy.

I shared an excerpt from a book by Neale Donald Walsch that posits the possibility that God and Life are one and the same. I'm looking at the characteristics of both abstract nouns, God and Life, to see what they might have in common that could make that hypothesis true. Some would rather dissect the semantics of the words themselves, which is fine, though not what I was hoping for. Each person comes at the theory with their own perspective.

While I am quite happy to regard the God of my upbringing as obvious mythology (not that there's anything wrong with that), I am not quite ready to abandon the concept of God entirely. I believe God needs to be redefined to match with what I now believe. And this is my attempt to do that. You don't have to believe the same way I do, but if you have read anything else by NDW, I'd be interested to hear what you think about his philosophy.

Maybe I'm just an asshole, but I was under the impression that the social contract regarding witnessing is the witnesser gets to propose whatever ideas they want - and everybody else gets to respond however they like, up to and including debating it, refuting it, and blowing giant holes in it with a double-barreled shotgun (bland acceptance of the witnesser's ideas is uncommon at best, in these parts). And because the witnesser basically asked for it, ripping into their ideas like this is somehow not threadshitting. The only thing that's actually disallowed is personal insults - and usually shredding the person's idea isn't considered a personal insult.

I'd say it's good clean fun for all, except that as often as not the witnessers themselves are unaware of how the game is played here and are surprised to find themselves getting ripped into.

For myself I'm entertained by strange ideas, as long as they're not boring - and to me this weird soul/god/telepathy business is not yet boring. I'll not be convinced, obviously, but I'm having fun drawing explanations of this odd concept of him and seeing how well his ideas adapt to having their logical flaws pointed out. I do hope he doesn't expect to convert me or anything (and I've tried to make it very clear nothing like that will happen), but as long as he's enjoying the discussion (which he seemingly is) I don't even feel like I'm tweaking the guy.

I shared an excerpt from a book by Neale Donald Walsch that posits the possibility that God and Life are one and the same. I'm looking at the characteristics of both abstract nouns, God and Life, to see what they might have in common …

Here is one thing that they do not have in common: one of them is not an abstraction. Life is a real, observable phenomenon that can be measured, studied and interrupted. Otherwise, you would have to say that heat, sound and waterfalls are abstract nouns when in fact those things are very real.

Look, Biffster. I challenge you in a specific way. If "God" and "Life" are the same to you, then pick just one of the words, doesn't matter which one, and promise that for five full years you will never write, type, or say the other one. Just replace both with one or the other - no explaining or apologizing permitted. Deal?

This is not for just internet discussions, but your everyday life and all of your work.

So if you have an empty space that touches exactly three gods, does a new god appear? And if a god has less than two neighbor gods does it die of loneliness, or if more than three neighbor gods, of overcrowding?

__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.

Look, Biffster. I challenge you in a specific way. If "God" and "Life" are the same to you, then pick just one of the words, doesn't matter which one, and promise that for five full years you will never write, type, or say the other one. Just replace both with one or the other - no explaining or apologizing permitted. Deal?

This is not for just internet discussions, but your everyday life and all of your work.

I think you've misunderstood my purpose in starting this thread. I'm interested in discussion. I don't believe issuing an ultimatum is in the spirit of having a discussion. No offense.

Here is one thing that they do not have in common: one of them is not an abstraction. Life is a real, observable phenomenon that can be measured, studied and interrupted. Otherwise, you would have to say that heat, sound and waterfalls are abstract nouns when in fact those things are very real.

Life is still an abstract noun. You can measure signs of life, like breathing, pulse rate, synaptic response, but these are only circumstantial factors that point to the existence of life. Life itself is still pretty mysterious in and of itself. Life pretty much means not-dead.

I think you've misunderstood my purpose in starting this thread. I'm interested in discussion. I don't believe issuing an ultimatum is in the spirit of having a discussion. No offense.

Since the original discussion as you conceived it is not at all in the spirit of having a discussion*, I figured my idea would fit in just fine. And I think it's perfectly productive for you to consider the possibility that the equivalence you're proposing is incomplete or false.

* A discussion always includes an OP who's perfectly willing to be proved wrong.

Since the original discussion as you conceived it is not at all in the spirit of having a discussion*, I figured my idea would fit in just fine. And I think it's perfectly productive for you to consider the possibility that the equivalence you're proposing is incomplete or false.

* A discussion always includes an OP who's perfectly willing to be proved wrong.

Alright. I've considered it and I don't agree. Fair enough?

Re: discussion: again, it is not me you are "proving wrong," but rather the conjecture of Neale Donald Walsch that I offered up as a basis for discussion. Your preoccupation with "proving" things one way or another is your thing, not mine. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

Re: discussion: again, it is not me you are "proving wrong," but rather the conjecture of Neale Donald Walsch that I offered up as a basis for discussion. Your preoccupation with "proving" things one way or another is your thing, not mine. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

I think it's disingenuous to demure from defending your position by throwing Walsch under the bus every time you are asked to give evidence in support of a conjecture you've (also) made, i.e. God=Life.

Only for people that feel that words are meaningless things that can be reframed by every individual to mean whatever they want them to mean if they don't agree with what other people think it means. It can be defined by people who don't blow off talking language.

Only for people that feel that words are meaningless things that can be reframed by every individual to mean whatever they want them to mean if they don't agree with what other people think it means. It can be defined by people who don't blow off talking language.

I think it's disingenuous to demure from defending your position by throwing Walsch under the bus every time you are asked to give evidence in support of a conjecture you've (also) made, i.e. God=Life.

How am I throwing Walsch under the bus? As I've stated many times, he's where this idea came from for me. And I think it's an idea worth discussing. I'm not sure why you're so bothered by it.

So if you have an empty space that touches exactly three gods, does a new god appear? And if a god has less than two neighbor gods does it die of loneliness, or if more than three neighbor gods, of overcrowding?

Here's a challenge: find a picture of life. Should be easy, right? Just find a picture of something that's alive. Ah yes, but that would be something that has the quality or characteristic of possessing life, not a picture of life itself. Why? Because life is an abstract noun. We talk about it as though we all understand its meaning implicitly, when in fact we are talking about something invisible. For me, so it is with God. I can't see God directly, but I can feel the impact of His or Her or Its presence.

And now I wait for people to tell me why I'm out to lunch. Such fun for a Saturday morning.

So take it one step further; life has no physical or concrete existence. We infer its existence by looking for signs of life, but life itself is a concept. So is death, for that matter.

So by your logic, "God" is "Life", "God" is "Death", and "Life" is "Death"? Congrats-using that same level of reasoning, because both cats and dogs are animals, cats are dogs. BTW, until Walsch pops in here to discuss his reasoning, you get to be his surrogate because you are presenting this idea to us.

Here's a challenge: find a picture of life. Should be easy, right? Just find a picture of something that's alive. Ah yes, but that would be something that has the quality or characteristic of possessing life, not a picture of life itself.

You may think that you are saying something deep and profound and interesting, but I do not share that position.

So by your logic, "God" is "Life", "God" is "Death", and "Life" is "Death"? Congrats-using that same level of reasoning, because both cats and dogs are animals, cats are dogs. BTW, until Walsch pops in here to discuss his reasoning, you get to be his surrogate because you are presenting this idea to us.

That's not what I said, but if you wish to believe that, I'll try to be respectful.

Let me be more blunt (pre-pun intended.) You can say the same about anything. You can take a picture of snow but not of "snow." You can take a picture of food but not of "food." You can take a picture of a planet but not of "planet." You can take a picture of a computer but not of "computer." I get what you are trying to say, I just think that what you are trying to say is really, really, really, really stupid. It is something that should only seem deep to a stoned teenager.

That's not what I said, but if you wish to believe that, I'll try to be respectful.

If you want to drop in ideas like "death" is a conception, don't be surprised if others use that idea against your argument. "Try to be respectful" is all very well and good, but it isn't exactly a response to what was said, is it? If you want to claim that "Life" and "God" are somehow closely related because they are both concepts, then bringing up the fact that "death" is also a concept is your mistake, not mine.

If you want to drop in ideas like "death" is a conception, don't be surprised if others use that idea against your argument. "Try to be respectful" is all very well and good, but it isn't exactly a response to what was said, is it? If you want to claim that "Life" and "God" are somehow closely related because they are both concepts, then bringing up the fact that "death" is also a concept is your mistake, not mine.

Fair enough. But perhaps life and death are more closely related than we think. For animals, the difference between these two states is demonstrated by, among other things, breathing. The body is the same in both states, but in one state, the body is breathing while in the other it is not. Oddly enough, the word "spirit" is derived from the word for breath.

Fair enough. Perhaps they are not the same, but I can sure see some similarities. Or perhaps I should say sense some similarities, since I cannot "see" either one.

And no matter how many similarities there are between cats and dogs(they both have an average of four legs apiece, they both have heads and tails, they both have eat food etc) There are still differences between the two that cause people to use the term "Cat" when referring to cats and "Dog" when referring to dogs. The same with "God" and "Life"-you might find similarities between the two, but the only way to make the claim that one IS the other is to deliberately ignore the differences between them.

And no matter how many similarities there are between cats and dogs(they both have an average of four legs apiece, they both have heads and tails, they both have eat food etc) There are still differences between the two that cause people to use the term "Cat" when referring to cats and "Dog" when referring to dogs. The same with "God" and "Life"-you might find similarities between the two, but the only way to make the claim that one IS the other is to deliberately ignore the differences between them.

Though you might be hard-pressed to find a picture of Life, as opposed to "things that are alive," there is no shortage of pictures of God. And every single one of them, drawn by a human, seems to appear humanoid somehow. Can't imagine why that might be.

Though you might be hard-pressed to find a picture of Life, as opposed to "things that are alive," there is no shortage of pictures of God. And every single one of them, drawn by a human, seems to appear humanoid somehow. Can't imagine why that might be.

ST's vBulletin 3 Responsive Styles

Our newly refreshed styles in 2017, brings the old vb3 to the new level, responsive and modern feel. It comes with 3 colors with or without sidebar, fixed sized or fluid. Default vbulletin 3 style made responsive also available in the pack.
Purchase Our Style Pack Now